When I read your post, I had different reactions on different levels. On the surface, it seemed to me like you're being too harsh in your denunciation of science, and it sounds like you're expressing resentment that science denies the existence of the things you study. But at another level, there's truth in what you say. Only, to me, it's a neutral truth, and one that doesn't make science wrong.

There are limits to the kinds of questions that science can answer. Science can't really answer question such as the existence of God, because God, as a supernatural being, is by definition outside the domain of expertise of science. Questions of the paranormal present a similar conundrum for science, positing the existence of things not allowed by the presently-understood laws of nature.

The demand for repeatability gives science tremendous strength studying most kinds of problems. But by its nature, the doctrine of repeatability means that science has a hard time grasping singular occurrences and unique phenomena. It's an inherent limitation of the scientific method. If something sticks around long enough to be studied, or a phenomenon can be reproduced, it's easily proven by science. One-of-a-kind occurrences, or phenomena that never seem to happen when there's a scientist around, not so easy to prove.

What I'm getting at is that the science is very good at answering the questions it can answer, but outside its "design parameters", science may well be blind to things that actually do exist. Not blind as in wilfully blind, or stubborn, but simply because such things exist at a "wavelength" that the sensors of science can't perceive.

Yet. The sensors get better over time, though, through science's practice of building incrementally and carefully on prior knowledge, to build a pretty solid edifice. It makes science conservative, but it makes it strong. It's frustrating that "centuries often pass before their comrades are proven right", but it's not a fault in science.

For example, I wouldn't say that it reflects badly on science that up until recently the parable of the butterfly flapping its wings in China producing a tornado in Kansas would have been gibberish to a reputable science. The notion simply wouldn't have made sense until the intellectual tool of chaos theory was developed.

For the longest time, science considered the Big Bang a fundamental barrier to knowledge. Questions like "what was before the Big Bang?" were considered by definition nonsensical, along with "what's outside the universe?" Scientists keep picking at scabs like that, and so nowadays cosmologists chatter happily about multiverses and cyclical universes and all sorts of entertaining things.

So Lindy, I don't know if the phenomena you study are real or not. The tools of science say not, but I bear in mind that those tools have certain conceptual limitations. As knowledge grows, some things may become visible to science and you might be vindicated. I don't know. But science isn't being obstreperous or contrary by ruling that those things don't exist...for now. Everything in science is provisional. Be patient.